I thought I'd simply put it up on the forum to see whether anyone actually KNEW anything about it. All of the possibilities you mentioned had already occurred to me. I've never heard anyone mention a connection between them so I was intrigued to find these two movements which shared so much 'DNA' in common. I am aware of the basic histories of the two companies. The plates have exactly the same measurements and distance between the front and rear plates likewise.Ĭlick to expand.I made no claims of any such thing. Apart from those things just about everything is interchangeable. The winding arbors use a different design to make barrel removal possible but winding arbors from the barrels on one clock match the barrels from the other clock. The set up for the chime assembly has been redesigned and the lever for the strike hammers that runs across the outside of the rear plate also. Also the crutch and pallet arbor bridge are different. The Enfield uses a simplified version of depthing adjustment for the fly pinions. The rack and rack hook and gathering pallet have been reworked but the basic geometry is the same. The position of the warn wheel on the chime train might have shifted by about 1 millimetre. I think there is one position where that may not be true. As I said upthread, you could take any wheel assembly out of either clock and drop it into the corresponding position on the other clock and both wheel and pinion would mesh with the corresponding gears above and below in the train. Closely compare the pattern of the hole layout.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |